DailyKos Turns On It's Conspiracy-Obsessed Members

I have a high tolerance level for material I deem appropriate for this site, but one thing I REFUSE to allow is bullshit conspiracy theories. You know the ones — Bush and Blair conspired to bomb London in order to take the heat off their respective political problems. I can’t imagine what fucking world these people live in, but it sure ain’t the Reality Based Community.

So I banned these people, and those that have been recommending diaries like it. And I will continue to do so until the purge is complete, and make no mistake — this is a purge.Which makes one wonder exactly how many Kosites will be left?

47 Comments

In all seriousness, looks like the little bitch is finally tumbling to the fact that every single piece of venom on his site is going to be screen captured and copied and disseminated ad nauseum to hurt him and the candidates he supports and works for come election time…

Toby928July 8, 2005

“Ah…..screw them” LOL! Shark, thats just evil.

Tob

RegretJuly 8, 2005

Read Kos’ update to the original post. He has reinstated a bunch of them already. You call that a purge? This is another example why we can’t trust liberals to lead our nation at a time of war.

Phil SmithJuly 8, 2005

Looks like a false hope. Plenty of conspiracy-mongering to go around in the comments to that very thread.

PeterJuly 8, 2005

If, as many contend, we are free to speak our minds in this country, even if it’s some lunatic-fringe, whackjob conspiracy theory, then wouldn’t a “purge” be a restriction on freedom of speech.

Methinks I hear the contradictory flapping of moonbat wings approaching…

jd watsonJuly 8, 2005

Why is it that the left’s solution for people who they disagree with is always to purge them?

ChrishJuly 8, 2005

Good question, jd.

I thought the use of the word “purge” was especially revealing….in a Stalinesque sort of way 🙂

I love the comment where someone asks, apparently in all earnestness, “would you have banned people who during the cold war said the CIA was conducting mind control experiments on their own personnel and opening Americans’ mail?”

Well, when you put it that way!

Lurking ObserverJuly 8, 2005

This was an intriguing thread:

So, Kos says that he’s banned a number of dairies, because they are claiming there was a conspiracy.

But now he is reinstating them because they weren’t warned?

What does the warning entail? A warning not to:

Hold such beliefs?

Continue with those beliefs?

Posting those beliefs?

Making arguments supporting such beliefs?

If these were offensive, then why reinstate the people? How many times would one have to be warned about using the “n-word” before being banned?

If these were controversial, are they more or less controversial than, say, claims that no aircraft hit the Pentagon, or that Bush is a chimp?

bullwinkleJuly 8, 2005

If you truly love your moonbats set them free, wait ten minutes then reopen the cave, they’ll come home to roost.

mesablueJuly 8, 2005

Now they are arguing amongst themselves — too funny.

And oh yeah, Pearl Harbor was fake too according to the goofballs in that thread.

If they are too wacky for Markos, it’s scary that they are out walking around. Tom Cruise should get over there quick and give them some vitamins.

KarmafishJuly 8, 2005

You guys are just jealous.

dKos is one of the most influential political blogs around is responsible, in part, for getting the DSM into the mainstream media.

On the other hand, I’m somewhat glad that I don’t run as big a blog as Kos does for at least a couple reasons.

First off, Kos is a huge, big target. If he bends one way, he gets attacked. Bend the other way, he gets attacked. Let the extremists post on his blog, he’s an extremist too. Boot them off, and he’s a Nazi.

Second, his blog is so huge that it’s a full-time job. While blogging is fun and all, it would be truly exhausting to do this sort of thing full-time, day in and day out. It wouldn’t kill you, but it could leave you mentally exhausted.

Yeah, he’s a big, successful uberblogger. But there’s something to be said for running a small, quiet shop, too.

As for the numbers, Karma, you may recall that quality trumps quantity. But I have to concede one point to you: if by influence, you mean influencing reasonable people to believe that dkos flaps at the head of a 60,000 moonbat rookery, then yes, they’ve got influence in spades. No one here at Wizbang could ever make them look as bad as their own words do.

And you’re a slandering pig. I doubt anybody here is “jealous” of dKos. The guy running it is in another reality challenged universe and has a vision of the world that is not grounded in truth. Jealous? Hahaha…yeah right.

DomJuly 8, 2005

Actually, not a moment too soon but good for him.

KarmafishJuly 8, 2005

Hi Pennywit,

You’re comments are fair enough. dKos is huge, no doubt, and I’m sure that Kos has one hell of a job keeping up with things. I wish you the best on your blog.

Lord Floppington,

I love that name!

The quality at dKos is mixed. Like this site, it’s pretty wide open. Many of the diaries are very good, even excellent. Of course, some are putrid.

As for likwidshoe,

I’m a “slandering pig,” huh?

Jeez, calling someone jealous. What a horrible slander! What an insult!

You claim that Kos has “a vision of the world that is not grounded in truth”?

Would you care to back up that claim? Why should I take this seriously without evidence?

NahanniJuly 8, 2005

Karmafish,

Kos is the LLL equivalent of the porch light on a summer night. It is “influential” only to others of their ilk.

BTW…

If I use your logic then you must agree that McDonalds makes the best food around because they have sold “Billions and Billions” of them.

Right up until March, 2003, Bush claimed that the administration hoped to avoid war.

This was untrue.

Evidence:

Joe Wilson
Richard Clark
the Downing Street Memos
the Project for a New American Century

In 1999, Bush told writer Mickey Herskowitz that “If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.”

Karmafish rationalizes, Jeez, calling someone jealous. What a horrible slander! What an insult!

Well, you can rationalize it away in any way you want. Still slander though…

You claim that Kos has “a vision of the world that is not grounded in truth”?

Yes.

Would you care to back up that claim?

Redistribution of the wealth in the style of Karl Marx. “Civil rights” which are nothing but an empty charade for special rights. “Equality” while supporting “affirmative” action. “Patriotic” while spitting on the country and our troops. The belief that Republicans are “racists”, but that black people couldn’t make it without the Democrats. The claim that the right is “fascist”, and yet you are the one who wants to control my health care, my retirement, my paycheck, the amount of water in my toilet, the gas mileage in my car, what schools my kids can go to, and on and on and on and on and on…

Karmafish brings up Richard Clark. That’s a laugh. Which Richard Clark, may I ask? The public speaking Richard Clark? Or perhaps the book Richard Clark? Or perhaps it is the 9/11 testimony Richard Clark? All three are conflicting, so which is it Karmafish?

And then you bring up the Downing Street Memos. Please explain the relevance of these memos outside of moonbat circles. Thank you.

JmaRJuly 8, 2005

I just finished reading Richard Clarke’s book and I must say that it was incredibly informative and loaded with insider information. It was also cleared by the White House and I’m posiive that it wouldn’t have been if there were even a hint of misinformation. He goes through the Reagan years, the war between the Russians and Afghans/Taliban/budding AlQaeda and how we armed the mujahadeen (those stinger missiles were devestating to the Russian cause) right through present day. An excellent read and unchallenged from a factual standpoint.

I have been around the markets a long time and I have to say that today was perhaps one of the most egregious efforts I can recall witnessing of the unelected and accountable-to-no-one monetary authorities leaving their footprints in a market for those who have the least bit of experience trading.

Very best, Dan [Norcini]”

WailJuly 8, 2005

I love how bloggers are generally such dissent pussies. Case in point, dKos requires registration to post. I have been using the internet for years and refuse to sign up just for a one off, then ban deal. Most bloggers are always afriad of going over the edge, losing popularity, well your little internet world is not the real one, popularity does not matter. My stance that Israel, both Biblical and Today, totally sucks and is the cause of practically all the worlds problems is too controversial for most blogs left or right. It is an instant ban deal. Well truth is Israel still totally sucks and I shall continue to spread the word no matter how many blogs I am banned from as an “anti-semitic hater”. dKos is just a wannabe uberwuss, an israeliTOOL of the highest order on par with Charles Johnson of LGF, a guy he supposedly hates.

My stance that Israel, both Biblical and Today, totally sucks and is the cause of practically all the worlds problems is too controversial for most blogs left or right.

Maybe it’s just too stupid. Think of that possibility?

Well truth is Israel still totally sucks and I shall continue to spread the word no matter how many blogs I am banned from as an “anti-semitic hater”. dKos is just a wannabe uberwuss, an israeliTOOL of the highest order on par with Charles Johnson of LGF, a guy he supposedly hates.

Hahaha. For your sake, it’s a good thing that we don’t lock up nutcases such as yourself.

Are you kidding me? A few moments of review leads me to believe that this is utter crap, er, makes me question the veracity of such an exposé.

To set the scenario, consider the following:

You’ve cited the “Guerilla News Network”. Scan the site and look at all of the bias. Heck, the name of the network screams out “we’re pretty far-out politically, but believe us when we say we’re trustworthy, comrade”.

The author of the piece, Russ Baker, is not an “independent journalist” in a political sense as far as I can tell. He is independent in the sense that he is not a syndicated journalist who is able to appear regularly. Not that there is anything wrong with that but the term “independent” is misleading. Perhaps it is my own cynicism that is clouding my interpretation.

Next, “research support for this article was provided by the Investigative Fund of The Nation Institute”. [http://www.nationinstitute.org/events/] Heh, an extension of The Nation? Gee, you think there’s an agenda anywhere that might cloud Mr. Baker’s “independence”?

Now to the meat of the actual article that caught my eye regarding Mickey Herskowitz’s original “recollections” of Bush’s pubescent Presidential policies.

In 1999, when Herskowitz turned in his chapters for Charge to Keep, Bush’s staff expressed displeasure —often over Herskowitz’s use of language provided by Bush himself…

In the end, campaign officials decided not to go with Herskowitz’s account, and, moreover, demanded everything back. “The lawyer called me and said, ‘Delete it. Shred it. Just do it.'”

“They took it and [communications director] Karen [Hughes] rewrote it,” he said. A campaign official arrived at his home at seven a.m. on a Monday morning and took his notes and computer files. However, Herskowitz, who is known for his memory of anecdotes from his long history in journalism and book publishing, says he is confident about his recollections.

So Herskowitz has motivation, also known as an axe to grind, to pay back GWBush for Herskowitz’s “firing” (my quotes), to say nothing of any previous motivations to show Mr. Bush in a potentially unflattering light. I’m unfamiliar with Herskowitz’s work (other than the titles presented in this piece) so maybe others may chime in with their perceptions of his style and content. The point is that this seems eerily similar to R. Clark’s modus operandi and worthy of suspicion. Further, Herskowitz got in trouble for presenting material (on an unrelated topic) that he had presented previously, which was against his contract. Does that mean that his recollections are so poor that he did not remember the previous notes and had to copy them? I don’t know but it makes one pause and reconsider his “memory of anecdotes”. Maybe he just forgot his contract and the stories are entirely valid.

I don’t have a particular fondness for Mr. Bush’s policies, but you have presented some dubious sources. I’m not trying to kill the messenger though it may seem that way. Bush may or may not have said or thought the things that were reported. However, the literati assembling this pre-war conspiracy theory leave a lot to be desired. This particular one I’ll dismiss out of hand since I have found the sourcing, financing, and reportage to be highly questionable… to be generous.

blueeyesJuly 9, 2005

Karma, the Downing Street memo and Richard Clarke aren’t particularly good pieces of evidence. Almost all of them are speculation by low-ranking members of a system about another person’s motives, pretty far from acceptable testimony in a criminal court. The DSM doesn’t show anything but hearsay, and Clarke only provided information uphill – all he can say is that the information was ignored, fairly useless since anyone that subscribes to the Wall Street Journal since 1993 would have been able to guess the impressive revelation (key to Clarke’s arguement) that Osama Bin Laden wanted to attack the U.S.

And Joe Wilson didn’t do anything but show that one potential source for WMD material MAY not have been involved with Iraq. His initial report itself admited that his access to Niger was far from perfect.

And have you actually looked at the Project for a New American Century? Although they tried to get Clinton to bomb the crap out of Iraq in 1998, that was one single letter. Since then, they’be spent most of 2000 trying to get more efficent troop positioning in the No Fly Zone around Iraq and have no less than six major papers written between 2000 and 2003 stating that Iran was more of an issue. In fact, they decided that the cost of maintaining troops in and around Iraq “transcended the issue of Saddam”! Makes me not trust this group for political advice, but doesn’t seem like a huge conspiracy.

As to your smoking gun, the full quote is :

“One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief. My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. If I have a chance to invade—if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.”

This is your biggest smoking gun. A rather confused sentence by someone even I’ll admit isn’t that good of a speaker. Fine. I don’t remember the war in Kuwait as being to great a source of political capital, but whatever.

This sounds more like a President admitting that they’d use political capital from a war to further their own personal agenda (something Clinton did).
Maybe, just maybe, damning about the war in Afganistan, but only if you’re drunk as hell in the first place. Iraq was a use of political capital, not a source. Simply being used as a metaphor doesn’t cause a direct connection.

KarmafishJuly 9, 2005

AnonymousDrivel and blueeyes

(The bloggers on this site do have the best handles!)

I cannot prove that Bush lied concerning the war in Iraq and I cannot question the fairness in challenging the existing evidence.

It does seem strange to me, however, that so many sources have come forward attesting to the idea that Bush wanted this war. You can question the motives of Richard Clark (he was passed over or ignored from the start of this administration). You can question the motives of Herskowitz, as well. You can reduce the testimony of Dearlove, the head of MI6, to “hearsay.” But all these things together, plus others, strongly suggest that the Bush administration wanted war with Iraq.

You might argue that the war was necessary.

This is what my conservative friends are now arguing. The American people, I suspect, however, are realizing that they were duped. (Anybody with poll numbers?)

Since you guys control the show. That is, since the hard-right controls government for the moment, I have to hope that you guys have the country’s best interests at heart.

But I very much distrust the current administration.

KarmafishJuly 9, 2005

I’ll give you guys this, tho.

Wizbang is a much more aesthetic site than dKos. It looks better and it has a comfortable feel.

AnonymousDrivelJuly 9, 2005

RE: Karmafish’s post (July 9, 2005 01:38 AM)

(The bloggers on this site do have the best handles!)

Sometimes a catchy nom de plume better conceals the lack of quality content. Some might think this applies to Drivelers more than most, but who am I to judge. Now, Karmafish… that’s an entirely different animal. 😉 (Tangentially, does KarmaKramer ring a bell?)

…It does seem strange to me, however, that so many sources have come forward attesting to the idea that Bush wanted this war… But all these things together, plus others, strongly suggest that the Bush administration wanted war with Iraq.

“Wanted” is a pretty strong statement and a bit reckless to me. GWBush never received much of a fair grace period due to the animosity derived from the 2000 Presidential so he was guaranteed to experience unfair critique beyond the typical liberal vs. conservative conflicts. The anti-war mantra has been a thematic proclamation to weaken him and expected to some degree… keyword is “some”. The degree has been too extreme particularly when one recalls that many of the same political critics wanted war in Iraq when Clinton was in power. Heck, some even wanted war with Hussein’s Iraq under Bush’s watch! Doesn’t everyone remember the Congressional votes and the U.N. permission slips? It’s the hypocrisy that rankles me so not to mention the danger in disingenuous pontificating that meanders its way (no, homes directly) to the terrorist message machines. But I digress.

You might argue that the war was necessary… The American people, I suspect, however, are realizing that they were duped. (Anybody with poll numbers?)

Yes, I have and still do argue that too. But the polling, as always, is fraught with error. In fact were you to ask me if I was satisfied with this administration, I would say no. That does not mean, however, that I would support a Democratic one. Far from it. It just means that while I support his long-term strategy of combating terror, I find him failing elsewhere. I find the Democrats (particularly the Pelosi/Reid/Kennedy wing which is the leadership) failing everywhere.

As far as controlling the show, the Republicans are doing the “best” job possible as scary as that is. I, an indie who typically votes “R”, would be one of the least popular leaders on the planet since yielding to special interests would not be my forté. That is an absolute of contemporary politics and I would fail miserably, or tick-off my financiers. So, since I cannot lead, I’m stuck with supporting the best available option.

But I very much distrust the current administration.

I distrust every administration but I distrust the Republicans, as they currently exist, least. That is the practical conclusion. Likewise, I distrust the critiques of said administration particularly when doled out by the most partisan of opponents. Call me a cynic with unattainable expectations.

RingJuly 9, 2005

Karma,

Multiple poor sources suggesting the same thing does not the truth make. If this were the case, then you would also have to believe that The left are not patriotic, Bush and/or the Jews were behind 9/11 (and 7/7) and Dick Cheney kills puppies for after dinner entertainment. We always hear about how someone saw a map of Iraq in Cheneys office or some other BS, these stories have been floating for years and yet there is still nothing more than flimsy proof.
This is just like the mantra that Bush invaded solely because of WMDs, or Bush invaded because of he tied Saddam directly to 9/11. Neither of these are true, and yet they are constant talking points from the left. Since neither is true, whats the point of discussion.

As for Bush’s poll numbers, they’ve just gone up marginally, but then. Bush is doing a lot to piss of everyone, even his supporters (big spending, not being tough enough on terrorists, the flag burning ban etc..)

I don’t know how long you have been reading Wizbang, but there was a good post the other day. The alternatives to invading Iraq as the next step in the WoT. When you consider the options, Iraq was a good choice.

The left seems to be losing its grasp on reality. They went from blaming Joos and Bush for 9/11 to opposing a US foreign invasion of Iraq while excusing syrian and Jordainian invasion. They seem only to care about dead Iraqi civillians when it is a US bullet that unintentionally killed them, and not when a car bomb deliberately sends them to the four winds. They’ll get upset about a prisoner, who was caught trying to kill US troops, getting too much or too little A/C, but have complete disregard when civillians working in Iraq are beheaded on TV for propaganda purposes.

Do the right think Bush is perfect? No (well, sure, some do), but frankly, at this point, there can be no open debate since the smallest criticism against Bush by the right is held up as proof that the left was right all along, and the right were just misled ‘sheeple’, but have now come to their senses.

The Dem party seems to be following the extremist lemmings on the left, and ultimately, they too will end up on the end of the cliff. Why is it after every loss, they think the answer is to get more extreme (first they brought in Pelosi, then they got in Dean)?
There is a reason they call them fringe, and not mainstream, and when they say fringe, they are talking about small numbers, i.e. not too many votes.

Jay TeaJuly 9, 2005

Speaking as “Contributing Editor,” I see nothing above that would merit my personally banning anyone.

That, however, does not mean I would not rejoice or participate in mocking or deriding them mercilessly, perhaps even selecting their comment for special attention in a separate posting — which I have done before, and will cheerfully do again when I feel like it.

But I am extremely reluctant to push the “ban” button.

J.

BRJuly 9, 2005

Ring, you said it well:

“…at this point, there can be no open debate since the smallest criticism against Bush by the right is held up as proof that the left was right all along…”

That’s one of the ways the left has let their country down, made it impossible for those with good intentions to have constructive debate.

For example, Ring writes, “They went from blaming Joos and Bush for 9/11 to opposing a US foreign invasion of Iraq while excusing syrian and Jordainian invasion.”

I know no one on the left that blames Jews or Bush for 9/11.

The people that have made such statements are completely fringe and do not represent the left, nor Democrats, nor Progressives. Such views certainly do not represent the views of Howard Dean or Nancy Pelosi and to imply that they do is to misrepresent the views of your opponents.

Second, like many on the left, many of you guys seem to live in a political world that is so polarized, so “us” versus “them,” that you refuse to consider the strong possibility that Bush lied about the war.

You should consider that possibility, because it is likely true.

AnonymousDrivelJuly 9, 2005

RE: BR’s post (July 9, 2005 07:24 AM)

That’s [criticism = proof of Left’s “rightness”] one of the ways the left has let their country down, made it impossible for those with good intentions to have constructive debate.

Insightful. I hadn’t really thought about it in those terms before. I’d been pigeonholing such responses to critique as petty, simpleminded, and blatantly reflexive to the point of discounting the response completely. That’s not to say all critique is unwarranted, but every time on every matter? Transparent partisanship to the point of being meaningless.

sharkJuly 10, 2005

dKos has influence? Every fucking single candidate Kos was involved in pimping during the last election lost.

The boys running the blogs focusing on the Daschle v Thune race had a bigger impact in the last election.

Karmafish said, …that you refuse to consider the strong possibility that Bush lied about the war.

You should consider that possibility, because it is likely true.

And this is where you lose it.

ChrisAugust 1, 2005

I post liberal views periodically on this blog, and I think you guys are kidding yourselves when you get all self congratulatory about taking the high road. There’s plenty of vitriol on both sides. I’ve seen liberals concede a point in favor of the right wing, and the triumphalist howling begins, so “…at this point, there can be no open debate since the smallest criticism against Bush by the right is held up as proof that the left was right all along…” is a little one-sided. I rarely see either side willing to give an inch.

And believe me, I read plenty of conspiracy theories on this board that are completely unsupported by the facts. To hear some of you tell it, everything that reflects poorly on Republicans is the result of some elaborate left wing conspiracy. Or as I posted before, the equivalent of the old “they blew up their own headquarters so they could blame us” routine you always hear from repressive regimes when the opposition party gets attacked.

In this thread alone I’ve read that Kos claims to be “Patriotic” while spitting on the country and our troops. That the left seems “only to care about dead Iraqi civillians when it is a US bullet that unintentionally killed them, and not when a car bomb deliberately sends them to the four winds.”

Or how about “They’ll get upset about a prisoner, who was caught trying to kill US troops, getting too much or too little A/C, (as if that’s all the torture issue boils down to) but have complete disregard when civillians working in Iraq are beheaded on TV for propaganda purposes.” Please indicate what leads you to conclude that the left, or liberals, or Kos readers, or however you want to qualify them, fits the profile of people who have complete disregard when civilians are beheaded?

Or even the continuing characterization of those who disagree with you as “moonbats?” Anyone can post ridiculous stuff on a blog, but picking through all of the comments on a site, then portraying the most outrageous ones as representing the views of the entire liberal population, is lazy and intellectually dishonest.

MichaelCSeptember 3, 2007

Posted by Chris

“…but picking through all of the comments on a site, then portraying the most outrageous ones as representing the views of the entire liberal population, is lazy and intellectually dishonest.”